Our Hero discusses the lisp stereotype often associated with gay males.
Let’s back up from that specific example and pose the question: Where do stereotypes come from?
We often hear about groups dismissing blanket statements about their membership as simply “sterotying”. Still, that stereotype had to come from somewhere. Enough members of that group, somewhere, at sometime, must have had that trait for someone to have noticed it. Or is there some other explanation?
I think that stereotypes are associated with a segment of the population when people focus on the negative (or positive) aspects of a particular group, often based on a non-representative sample, and ignore the others. Often the stereotypes, based on cultural differences, are then used to denigrate members of the group, and also diminish their individuality, which is why I think it should be avoided.
. . . but, in order for a “stereotype” to become “common” or “popular”, it must be based on a large enough sample of the group being stereotyped in order to spread. My parents live in an area in Northern California where Japanese own many of the local farms, (i.e. Aoki Farms, Takana Farms, etc.), yet I have never heard of Japanese being stereotyped as farmers. The point being, most “stereotypes” are based on large samples of people from that group and are usually more factual than people will admit.
bs, this is a question people hate to answer because it forces people to admit things they might not want to. I think that most statements labeled as “stereotypes” are actually negative cultural/biological differences. By calling them “stereotypes” we can then dismiss them easier and avoid discussing them.
If I were to say, “Mexicans have big families”, (I am a gay Latino, b.t.w.) and explain how larger families have historically served as an economic and social net for Mexicanos, the comment would be accepted as a statement on a cultural difference. If I were to don a white hooded robe and make the statement “Mexicans have big families”, it would be labeled a stereotype. Why? Only because the purpose in making the FACTUAL statement is different.
We live in a country where we are supposed to celebrate the diversity of all the cultures here, yet we have to accept that the differences among us are ALL EQUALLY POSITIVE. This cannot be true. I would say that 90% of statements labeled as “stereotypes” are actually negative cultural/biological differences that are true between groups. But once we admit this, the truths that arise become unpleasant.
There’s also a selection bias. The stereotypes are often picked up from the visible, vocal, or otherwise noticable portion of the group, when many of the group who don’t do that are overlooked.
There is usually a basis of some sort to stereotypes, but the are exaggerated representations of the cultural difference, focused on the negative aspects.
A lot of it is based on circular reasoning, too. Picture the following conversation:
Bob: Gays talk with a lisp
Alice: How do you know?
Bob: Well, Charlie lisps, and he’s gay.
Alice: He is not!
Bob: Yes he is, just listen to the way he talks! He has to be gay!
In other words, person must be in group, because they show stereotype, and since they’re in that group and show that stereotype, then the stereotype must be true.
Before you laugh, I once saw a serious study purporting to find some genetic basis for homosexuality. All well and good, except the study didn’t specifically use homosexuals as the sample, but male ballet dancers, since “Everyone knows that male ballet dancers are gay”
There was a time that I thought British women were more charming and intelligent on average than American women.
I then realized what gave me that idea.
Never having travelled abroad, I was only allowed to meet those British women who were able to visit the US. I was meeting a subset of British women who were better educated than average, and comparing them with the whole gamut of American women.
So, while some stereotypes may be rooted in truth, others may come from limited experience with the group in question.
Imagine that you live in an environment that restricts your exposure to blacks. If you were to drive through a black neighborhood during the day, and see a number of black males sitting around on street corners, you might conclude that blacks are lazy and shiftless. However, what you don’t consider is that the hard working black males are at work during the day. You didn’t see any of them, because they were at work.
One problem with a statement like “Mexicans have big families” is that it could be interpreted in at least two different ways. You could be saying that Mexicans, in general (or on the average) tend to have larger families than the norm for the general population (which may well be true). Or it could be interpreted to mean ALL Mexicans have big families. (If P, then Q. That guy over there is a Mexican, therefore he must have a big family.) And that’s where you run into trouble: applying tendencies or generalizations about groups to specific individuals.
Plus, it’s possible for stereotypes to work as self-fulfilling prophecies.
If I hear all the time that “Men never ask for directions,” I’m certainly never going to ask for directions; it would cast doubt on my manliness!